omv-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

container_inspect

Inspect a Docker container's full configuration, mounts, network settings, and state. Get complete details for any container on the OpenMediaVault NAS.

Instructions

Full docker inspect for one container (config, mounts, network, state).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "container_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It names the output components but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention potential errors (e.g., container not found), or describe the output format. The term 'docker inspect' implies read-only behavior, but this is implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope and output categories, earning every word.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the return categories (config, mounts, network, state), which helps an agent anticipate the result. It lacks explicit mention of JSON output or error scenarios, but these are reasonably implied for a Docker inspect operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds minimal context via 'for one container', indicating the name identifies a container, but it doesn't clarify if a name or ID is expected, nor provide examples. This partially compensates for the schema gap but could be more helpful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs 'Full docker inspect' for a single container and lists the returned categories (config, mounts, network, state). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_stats or container_logs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the comprehensive inspection tool ('Full docker inspect') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclusions. No direct comparison to sibling tools is provided, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.